Object Velocity 0.00: How to Tell if It's Not Moving

  • Thread starter Thread starter wraithseeker
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Negative Velocity
AI Thread Summary
To determine if an object's velocity is 0.00, one must understand the distinction between speed and velocity, where velocity is a vector with both direction and magnitude. Speed, being the magnitude of velocity, is always a non-negative value, while velocity can be negative depending on direction. The magnitude of a velocity vector can indeed be 0, indicating no movement. Confusion arises when interpreting the length of the velocity vector, which cannot be negative but can be zero. Therefore, an object's velocity is 0.00 when it is at rest, meaning there is no movement.
wraithseeker
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
How do you know that a object's velocity is 0.00 or below meaning that is not moving at all?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You're confusing speed and velocity. Velocity is a vector, it has direction and magnitude. The speed is that magnitude. Speed is strictly positive, while velocity can be negative.
 
But when I get the length of the velocity vector, it can never get to negative and I think that the lowest is 1?
 
The length is the magnitude, aka the speed, which can never be negative (of course it can be 0, that just means there's no movement).
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
View full post »

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Similar threads

I How does an object know how far to move when it's moving?
Replies
7
Views
1K
MCNP Modelling Detector Energy Response Vs Empirical Results
Replies
3
Views
2K
Modal mass and kinetic energy in FEM modal analysis
Replies
3
Views
4K
B Is velocity ever a scalar quantity?
Replies
48
Views
4K
On Bodies Moving with a Constant Velocity
Replies
11
Views
1K
I Does a rotating accelerometer moving linearly measure linear velocity?
Replies
47
Views
4K
How can I convert global rotation to local rotation for objects?
Replies
1
Views
3K
Direction of Angular velocity and Angular momentum?
Replies
9
Views
2K
B Acceleration of Moving Particles: Explained
Replies
6
Views
1K
Estimating Torque from Power over Time
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top